Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments

  • Development
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Open-ended learning environments (OELEs) use the capabilities of technology to provide students with opportunities to engage in authentic problem solving; generate, test, and revise hypotheses; explore and manipulate concepts; and reflect on what they know. By design, such environments require sophisticated levels of cognitive functioning. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze assumptions underlying learner-centered, technology-based environments in light of how well learners appear to meet the cognitive demands for engaging them. Implications for design include the following considerations: (a) direct learner attention to key variables and visual cues; (b) prompt and guide connections to prior knowledge; and (c) provide explicit scaffolding of metacognition and teaching-learning strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atkins, M., & Blissett, G. (1992). Interactive video and cognitive problem-solving skills.Educational Technology, 32(1), 44–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D.P. (1963). Cognitive structure and the facilitation of meaningful verbal learning.Journal of Teacher Education, 14, 217–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P. (1998, April).The knowledge integration environment: Relating debate and conceptual change through design experiments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA.

  • Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning.Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, N.W. (1994). Children's observations, ideas, and the development of classroom theories about light.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 639–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J.H. Flavell & E.H. Markman (Eds.)Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3, Cognitive Development (pp. 177–266). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brungardt, J.B., & Zollman, D. (1995). Influence of interactive videodisc instruction using simultaneous-time analysis on kinematics graphing skills of high school physics students.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(8), pp. 855–869.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education.American Psychologist, 41(10), 1123–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Champagne, A., Gunstone, R., & Klopfer, L. (1985). Instructional consequences of students' knowledge about physical phenomena. In West, L.H.T., & Pines, A.L. (Eds.),Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 61–90). Orlando: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices.Cognitive Science, 8, 121–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. & Brewer, W. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction.Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., & Bowers. J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice.Educational Researcher, 28(2), pp. 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deGroot, A. (1965).Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • deJong, T., & van Joolingen, W. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains.Review of Educational Research, 68(2), pp. 179–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom.Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, B.J. (1998, April).Designing visualization tools for learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). San Diego, CA.

  • Garner R., & Alexander, P.A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions.Educational Psychologist, 24, 143–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M.L. (1986). Problem-solving strategies.Educational Psychologist, 21, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordin, D., Edelson, D., & Pea, R. (1996, April).Supporting students' science inquiry through scientific visualization activities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York, NY.

  • Gordin, D., & Pea, R. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 249–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, B.A. (1995). Comprehension of text in an unfamiliar domain: Effects of instruction that provides either domain or strategy knowledge.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 313–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, B.A., & Land, S.M. (in press). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the World Wide Web.Journal of Educational Computing Research.

  • Gyllenhaal, E., & Perry, D. (1998, May).Doing something about the weather: Summative evaluation of Science Museum of Minnesota's atmospheric explorations computer interactives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Museums. Los Angeles, CA.

  • Hamel, C., & Ryan-Jones, D.L. (1997). Using three-dimensional interactive graphics to teach equipment procedures.Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(4), pp. 77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M.J., Hall, C., Land, S., & Hill, J. (1994). Learning in open-ended environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications.Educational Technology, 34(8), 48–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M.J., Land, S.M., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. Reigeluth's (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models, Volume II (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M.J., & Peck, K.L. (1988).The design, development, and evaluation of instructional software. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M.J., & Rieber, L.P. (1989). Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer-based instructional technologies: Part I.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37, 91–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. (1999). A conceptual framework for understanding information seeking in open-ended information systems.Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(1), 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J.R., & Hannafin, M.J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the world wide web.Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(4), 37–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo, C., & Day, R. (1999). Contextualized questioning to scaffold learning from simulations.Computers and Education, 32, 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jared, E., & Jared, A. (1997). Launching into improved comprehension: Integrating the KWL Model into middle level courses.Technology Teacher, 56(6), pp. 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models, Volume II (pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Inhelder, B. (1975). “If you want to get ahead, get a theory.”Cognition, 3(3), 195–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G., & Crawford, T. (1996). Students' interactions with computer representations: Analysis of discourse in laboratory groups.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 693–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking.Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–26, 46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S.P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S.P. Lajoie and S.J. Derry (Eds.),Computers as Cognitive Tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S.M., & Greene, B.A. (2000). Project-based learning with the World Wide Web: A qualitative study of resource integration.Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(1), pp. 45–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S.M., & Hannafin, M.J. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments.Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(3), pp. 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S.M., & Hannafin, M.J. (1997). Patterns of understanding with open-ended learning environments: A qualitative study.Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(2), 47–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S-Y, & Songer, N. (1998, April).Characterizing discourse in an electronic community of science learners: A case of the Kids as Global Scientists '97 message board. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Diego, CA.

  • Lewis, E., Stern, J., & Linn, M. (1993). The effect of computer simulations on introductory thermodynamics understanding.Educational Technology, 33(1), 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C., & Secules, T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection.Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(3), 43–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M., Shear. L., Bell, P., & Slotta, J. (1999). Organizing principles for science education partnerships: Case studies of students' learning about ‘rats in space’ and ‘deformed frogs’.Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(2), pp. 61–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Reiser, B., Gomez, L., Edelson, D., & Russell, E. (1997). The Progress Portfolio: Promoting reflective inquiry in complex investigation environments. InProceedings of the 1997 Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning. Available online at: http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/cscl/.

  • Lyons, D., Hoffman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997, April).An investigation of the use of the world wide web for on-line inquiry in a science classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL.

  • Mayer, R.E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. Reigeluth's (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models, Volume II (pp. 141–159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, (1995). Information problem solving: A wider view of library skills.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicaise, M., & Crane, M. (1999). Knowledge constructing through hypermedia authoring.Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 29–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, K. (1999, February).Computer-based tools in support of internet-based problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. St. Louis, MO.

  • Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh—A response to C. Addisone Stone's “The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities.”Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 370–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities,Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R.D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning.Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R.D. (1993). The collaborative visualization project.Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 60–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D.N. (1985). The fingertip effect: How information-processing technology shapes thinking.Educational Researcher, 14(7), pp. 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D.N., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching and learning for understanding. In C. Reigeluth's (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models, Volume II (pp. 91–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petraglia, J. (1998). The real world on a short leash: The (mis)application of constructivism to the design of educational technology.Educational Technology Research & Development, 46(3), pp. 53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petre, M. (1995). Readership skills and graphical programming.Communications of the ACM, 38(6), 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1976).The grasp of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakes, G. (1996). Using the internet as a tool in a resource-based learning environment.Educational Technology, 36(5), 52–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. (1995). A historical view of visualization in human cognition.Educational Technology Research & Development, 43(1), 45–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L., Noah, D., & Nolan, M. (1998, April).Metaphors as graphical representations within open-ended computer simulations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA.

  • Rieber, L., Tzeng, S-C, Tribble, K., & Chu, G. (1996, April).Feedback and elaboration within a computer-based simulation: A dual coding perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York, NY.

  • Roth, W-M. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacher-student interactions: The case of Interactive Physics™.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 329–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1986). Information technologies: What you see is not (always) what you get.Educational Psychologist, 20, 207–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D.A. (1983).The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D., Brophy, S., Lin, X., & Bransford, J. (1999). Software for managing complex learning: Examples from an educational psychology course.Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(2), pp. 39–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, E. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977–1988.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 117–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stepans, J. (1996).Targeting students' science misconceptions. Riverview, FL: Idea Factory, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K., & Posner, G. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl and R. Hamilton (Eds.),Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice, (147–176).

  • Suthers, D., Toth, E., & Weiner, A. (1997). An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the classroom. InProceedings from the 1997 Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning conference. Available online at: http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/cscl/.

  • Tufte, E.R. (1983).The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning: A synthesis. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 1–17). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, R., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997, April).Digital libraries in the science classroom: An opportunity for inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association: Chicago, IL.

  • Wallace, R., & Kupperman, J. (1997, April).On-line search in the science classroom: Benefits and possibilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Penn State University, 315 Keller Building, 16802, University Park, PA

    Susan M. Land (Assistant Professor)

Authors
  1. Susan M. Land
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan M. Land.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Land, S.M. Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. ETR&D 48, 61–78 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319858

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319858

Keywords

Search

Navigation